The fundamental problem with capitalism (as described by Bo Burnham

That sounds like government regulation to me.

I am talking about charitable giving, and you throw me an industrial fire, with complaint about wages. I don't see the connection, and will not ask for one. I doubt one exists. Try stayng on point.

I think communities should solve their own problems, and not blame others, or beg help so much.

I 'am Pro Self Reliance, though I don't disagree with Federal Aid/Funding/Emergency Relief.

I figure if communities gave more effort, care, and planning. . They wouldn't 'need the government so much.

If the heating is out in a school, or it doesn't have much money, what type of community is it, that can't look after itself, or has 'NO members of the community able or willing to solve the problem themselves.

Not that I'm one for community or charity work myself.

Just seems to me, people sometimes, perhaps often, have themselves to blame for their circumstance

What does a 'good' government regulation look like?

Communities that are economically disadvantaged are by definition less able to be 'self reliant'. Does that mean that people in poorer areas are less deserving of education, heat and food? Is deciding whose 'fault' it is that some areas are disadvantaged really more important than finding some solution to the problem?

What does a 'good' government regulation look like?

I don't know. But I'll offer, express the will of the people.

I 'am Pro Self Reliance, though I don't disagree with Federal Aid/Funding/Emergency Relief.

I do not believe that communities should be 'discriminated against.

I believe that it is in the interest of communities to help one another, for net gain.

The solution, sometimes, feels obvious.

Seems to me government is the expression of the people, for good or ill.

Government is a tool, an expression, an avatar.

I don't see a problem with the Government helping people out if it's able.

If the government is corrupt, or the government a yoke upon the people.

Then this too, represents the people of that nation, and their nature.

What if the will of the people is heinous as it was in the southern states before the civil war? Is a government regulation that informs and enforces the will of the people to be prejudiced a 'good' regulation?

Just glance over a few pages of history.

What if the will of the people is heinous as it was in the southern states before the civil war? Is a government regulation that informs and enforces the will of the people to be prejudiced a 'good' regulation?

Actually yes.

If a county or a state wants to allow certain behavior within their jurisdiction, no matter how "morally repugnant" that behavior is to "outsiders" they must be free to exercise their sovereignty WITHIN their territorial borders.

When that behavior crosses county lines, it becomes a STATE concern.

When that behavior crosses state lines, it becomes a FEDERAL concern.

History says, even after 50 years of OSHA regulation, that the leading cause of worker death is motor vehicle accidents, and the majority of those is driver error. Next is falls, and the leading cause of that is worker error. That's history. Industry has been fighting against worker irresponsibility since the industrial revolution. Highest issue: training retention. You can lead a horse to water...

Perhaps but I wouldn't want to live there.

If a county or a state wants to allow certain behavior within their jurisdiction, no matter how "morally repugnant" that behavior is to "outsiders" they must be free to exercise their sovereignty WITHIN their territorial borders.

When that behavior crosses county lines, it becomes a STATE concern.

When that behavior crosses state lines, it becomes a FEDERAL concern.

Without rapists, who's gonna buy your whistles?

So in your view 

A: persons born into impoverished communities are less deserving of education and resources 

And

B: government regulations that promote harm to certain groups are of equal value as government regulations that promote wellbeing equally to all groups.

If I am mistaken I welcome any clarification 0f your arguments.

My view is 'intended to speak of people's 'own power over themselves and their situation.

Though I did not care for his interpretation, finding his words unduly harsh, and lacking an understanding that some people do not possess the capability to respond to certain circumstance or that certain circumstance can overwhelm.

when I frown upon a community for not being able to help themselves (due to systemic poverty), but because I believe they can be better than that (being subject to systemic poverty).

If it were a community of people possessing mental frailty and illness, I would simply remark upon it with no criticism,

I think individuals and groups should have a sense of responsibility for how they confront existence, no matter what it is.